After a brief lull, there was a bunch more Jeffrey Epstein news yesterday. Here's an overview:
Subpoenas: House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chair James Comer (R-KY) was
given marching orders from his fellow committee members: Issue subpoenas that will help get to the bottom of the Epstein
scandal. Yesterday,
he complied,
demanding information from the White House, and also sending subpoenas to former U.S. Attorney Generals Bill Barr,
Alberto Gonzales, Jeff Sessions, Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder and Merrick Garland; former FBI Directors Robert Mueller and
James Comey, and Bill and Hillary Clinton.
There are some pretty obvious gaps in that list. Given Comer's apparent interest in attorneys general and FBI directors
(FBIs director?), he didn't see fit to subpoena current AG Pam Bondi or current FBI Director Kash Patel. And even if
Comer is operating under the belief that current members of the administration would tell him to piss off, or would
invoke some sort of immunity or privilege, what about Alex Acosta? He's not in office right now, and he is the fellow
who gave Epstein a plea deal that is almost too generous to believe, with the explanation that he (Acosta) was told that
Epstein was an intelligence operative. Sure seems like Acosta would have some interesting information to share.
Maybe more subpoenas are forthcoming. But if they are not, then this is clearly not what most/all of the committee
members voted for. One cannot take that witness list as a serious effort to actually figure out what happened. We're not
entirely sure what is going on, here (again, assuming no other subpoenas are forthcoming). Is Comer trying to change the
narrative, and to make this about the Clintons/Democrats, and not about Trump? Or has Comer imbibed so much of the Trump
Kool-Aid that he actually believes Hillary Clinton is a more important witness than Acosta (or than Trump himself)?
Grand Jury Testimony: The White House is
once again
pursuing the possibility of releasing grand jury transcripts, despite the fact that one judge already said "no," and
the rules here are pretty clear. The victims of Epstein
have asked
that the materials remain sealed, and so too
has Ghislaine Maxwell.
Maxwell: Speaking of Maxwell, the administration is also thinking about releasing a partial transcript of
the interview she sat for last week. Apparently, key members of the administration
are going to have dinner
tonight and discuss strategy, with J.D. Vance serving as host. Oh, to be a fly on the wall. Whatever Vance & Co. decide, it has
already leaked
that the main thrust of Maxwell's comments, at least as regards Trump, is that he never did anything in her presence
that caused concern.
It would seem that the White House thinks this characterization is exculpatory. We're not so sure. First of all, the
people who are concerned with the Epstein scandal, regardless of their political vantage point, are not likely to trust
her. Second, that characterization seems to be very carefully crafted to give Trump what he wants (in search of a
pardon, presumably) without committing perjury. She doesn't say that he never did anything wrong, or that she has no
knowledge of illegal or immoral activities, only that he didn't do anything "concerning" around her. That leaves an awful
lot of room for bad behavior. Oh, and she's a convicted pedophile sex trafficker, so her definition of "concerning" may
be rather different than that of most people.
About that Lawsuit: Trump has begun
slow-walking
his lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal. Yesterday, the President agreed to delay all depositions until a court has
decided whether or not to dismiss his suit. Previously, he was pushing for Rupert Murdoch to be deposed ASAP. This change in
approach is being interpreted as a sign that: (1) Trump wants this lawsuit to stop making headlines and/or (2) Trump is
planning to quietly drop the matter.
Politics, Republican: Most Republican members of Congress are spending their recess in hiding,
for fear of angry blowback from constituents over a host of issues. Rep. Mike Flood (R-NE) was one of the brave few who decided
to face the music, and to hold a town hall for constituents. He may regret that decision, as
he got blasted
for the better part of 2 hours, primarily about Epstein and the BBB.
Politics, Democratic: A Democratic politician has broken the seal, as it were. Stephen J. Cloobeck
is a businessman, and the latest person to decide that he might just be able to buy his way into the California governor's mansion.
Since nobody has ever heard of him, and since he's up against a bunch of heavyweights with actual name recognition, he's a
bit desperate. And so, in his first campaign ad, he decided to lean into the Epstein scandal. You can
see it
for yourself, if you wish:
We are not quite sure how the logic of "Trump is a pervert, so vote for me for governor" works, and the commercial doesn't
really answer that. Still, if Epstein continues to be an anchor around Trump's neck, this is just going be the first of
many such commercials.
And there you have it: Jeffrey Epstein, the dead pedophile who just keeps on giving. Yay? (Z)
This item appeared on www.electoral-vote.com. Read it Monday through Friday for political and election news,
Saturday for answers to reader's questions, and Sunday for letters from readers.
